You are here
Home > Archive > An unhealthy collision course

An unhealthy collision course

States often adopt a course of confrontation with the judiciary citing popular mandate and legislative power as superior to court judgments. The mass support is often cited as the reason for not complying with the court order. We have seen this in regard to the Karnataka Government not complying with the orders of Cauvery Water Tribunals reinforced by the Supreme Court.

An unhealthy collision course

A more recent attempt to circumvent Supreme Court’s judgment relates to the ban Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu. Political parties in Tamil Nadu have pressured the Central government to circumvent the earlier judgment banning Jallikattu. This is a local sentimental issue in a couple of issues in Southern Tamil Nadu that is not of great impact to other large sections- in fact quite a number of these are offered to this wild start that endangers safety of the animal participants and the spectators. The Supreme Court has pointed to the cruelty inflicted in the bulls.    

   

A similar attempt not to comply with such directions is also witnessed in the Mullai Periyar Dam issue by the Kerala Government.


 


A more recent attempt to circumvent Supreme Court’s judgment relates to the ban Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu. Political parties in Tamil Nadu have pressured the Central government to circumvent the earlier judgment banning Jallikattu. This is a local sentimental issue in a couple of issues in Southern Tamil Nadu that is not of great impact to other large sections- in fact quite a number of these are offered to this wild start that endangers safety of the animal participants and the spectators. The Supreme Court has pointed to the cruelty inflicted in the bulls.


 


The state government has requested the centre to promulgate an ordinance to overrule the court order. Such a confrontation with the judiciary is recurring from time to time. A stand aloofness of the state was seen when unruly lawyers openly defied the order of the Madras High Court on mandatory wearing of helmets. Subsequently such behaviour in the first court of Madras High Court presided over by the Chief Justice, all the while the police remained ineffective. These led to the court demanding security to be provided by the CISF. This was again contested by the state, but over ruled by the highest court.


 


Such confrontation doesn’t bode well for the balanced functioning of the three arms of governance- the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. There should be appreciation of the sanctity of separation of powers defined by the constitution by all the three arms of the government.


 


There is also the urgency of the AIADMK Supremo to tread cautiously over such issues. The Disproportionate Assets Case against her is to be taken up by the highest court from 2 February. Such a confrontationist efforts can impact the course of the case.


Author :
Reported On :
Listed Under :
Shoulder :
Skip to toolbar Log Out
Your Feedback Please